Bills May Shortchange Care, Advocates Fear

Washington--As the Congress eyes legislation that would shift
thousands of women off welfare rolls and into employment, child
advocates are weighing its potential impact on a segment of the
population they say is crucial to the proposals' success: the children
of welfare recipients.

"Too frequently, child care gets put on the bottom of the list when
[legislators] talk about the importance of education, training, and
employment programs," said Mary Lee Allen, director of child welfare
and mental health for the Children's Defense Fund.

Despite increasing national interest in child-care issues, added
Marjorie A. Kopp, policy analyst for the Child Welfare League of
America, many lawmakers "are not really looking at what happens to the
childrenNEWS ANALYSIS

when they talk about sending mothers off to work" under welfare
reform,

Children's advocates generally agree, however, that the
welfare-reform legislation currently pending in the Congress would
represent a significant advance over the current system. They note that
the bill passed by the House and the measure awaiting markup in the
Senate would provide child-care assistance not only for working
parents, but also for those enrolled in education and training
programs.

Both would also provide such assistance, on a sliding-fee scale, for
several months after work begins and welfare benefits end--for a year
in the House bill and for nine months in the Senate bill.

But a chief concern raised by advocacy groups is that the plans do
not contain enough funding to ensure affordable, high-quality care for
the young children of potential participants.

The "family security act of 1987," introduced by Senator Daniel P.
Moynihan, Democrat of New York, would maintain the $160-a-month
child-care allowance now provided under the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children program.

"The family welfare reform act," passed by the House in December,
would increase that entitlement to $175 a month for parents of children
ages 2 or older, and to $200 a month for infants under 2.

Although child-welfare advocates favor the higher allowances in the
House measure, HR 1720, they say neither bill approaches the market
rate for licensed child care.

Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee last October, Arthur
B. Keys, Jr., executive director of Interfaith Action for Economic
Action, a coalition of religious groups, said the average cost of child
care is $300 per month nationally and is higher for infants and
disabled children.

In New York City, $80 a week is the standard rate "for unlicensed
babysitting," noted Eve Brooks, executive director of the Statewide
Youth Advocacy organization.

Will States Supplement?

Assessments of the extent to which states would supplement the
federal child-care entitlement present "a varied picture," said Ms.
Kopp.

Some states that have workfare programs in place, she said, "are
exceedingly willing to put in money for day care," but "some couldn't,
and some wouldn't, make much of an investment."

Even when states offer generous supplements, however, the system can
falter if families are not well informed about child-care options.

In California, which offers market-rate child care for its workfare
participants, preliminary data show only 20 percent are receiving paid
child care, said Heidi Strassberger, a staff lawyer with the Child Care
Law Center in San Francisco.

That figure suggests that "a big piece of welfare reform that is
missing is how to use child care successfully," she said.

Advocacy groups in Illinois and New York also cite deficiencies in
making optimal use of child-care benefits in welfare-reform plans.

The House bill would address that issue in part by requiring states
to hold orientations to describe child-care services.

Guaranteed Child Care

Another question that troubles child advocates is the extent to
which mothers would be required to participate in education, training,
and employment programs if they could not secure adequate day care.

Senator Moynihan's bill, S 1511, exempts parents with children under
3 from participating, but gives states the option to require
participation by those with infants ages 1 to 3.

Although it says states must assure child care to the extent
participants need it, child advocates are "nervous about the weight of
the language in the Moynihan bill," Ms. Kopp said.

The House bill, HR 1720, proponents say, includes much stronger
child-care guarantees. Under that bill, mothers with children under 1
would not be required to participate. Those with 1- to 3-year-olds
would only be required to do so--on a part-time basis--if infant care
is guaranteed at $200 a month and if the program emphasizes education
and training, including parenting and nutrition education.

Participation, part time, by mothers with children from 3 to 6 also
would depend on the availability of care at the rate specified in the
bill.

"In every case, child care must be appropriate for the age and
individual needs of the child" or the parent can appeal to the state to
negate the contract, said Susan A. Wilhelm, staff director of the House
Human Resources Subcommittee.

Many child advocates attribute the success of Massachusetts'
"Employment and Training Choices" program to its comprehensive
child-care component. The program guarantees a child-care voucher to
any participant with a preschool or school-age child who needs
care.

It also helps recipients choose a child-care provider, bases
reimbursement rates on market costs and their ability to pay, and
provides extended subsidized care, after employment begins.

Ms. Wilhelm said the House added stronger protections for mothers
unable to make adequate child-care arrangements after experts testified
that dependable child care is not widely available. They warned that
adding a whole new population to the child-care pool could strain an
already inefficient and overburdened system, she said.

Largely as a result of inflation4and federal budget cuts, 22 states
provided child care to fewer children in 1987 than in 1981, although
the number of poor children under 6 increased by more than 41 percent,
according to the c.d.f.'s 1987 "State Child Care Fact Book."

To address the shortage of day care, HR 1720 would authorize $150
million a year to train child-care personnel and provide grants to help
day-care providers renovate or establish new facilities.

Both the House and Senate bills would require that child care
provided through the program meet state and local standards. The House
bill includes more stringent health and safety protections and would
bar states from relaxing their child-care licensing requirements.

Advocates say some of the gaps in the welfare legislation could be
filled by the $2.5-billion "act for better child care," a bill
introduced last year that would expand and improve day care for low-
and middle- income families and set federal standards for child
care.

The bill, known as "a.b.c.," would "complement and reinforce"
welfare-reform legislation, Ms. Allen said. A Feb. 25 hearing on the
measure has been set by the House Education and Labor Committee.

"One investment should dovetail another," said Ms. Brooks, or else
"you will be taking a group of children already desperately neglected
by our society and increasing the level of neglect."

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.